Talk:Joseph Royle

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Royle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week and stack it up for User:Doug Coldwell when he gets back, as we have discussed. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Ganesha811: I am ready at this time to address any issues for this article. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted - I suddenly got busier than I expected, but will be turning to this and my other GA reviews this weekend at the latest. Thanks for your patience. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I'm presently working on some other GAN reviews that recently came in, so will get to this one when I can. Thanks for patience. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I'm trying to get this correct as you talk about in 1a and want to understand this correctly of using "enslaved servant" instead of the "slave" word. Have I worded this correctly in the Household section and under the advertises for captions? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thank you for your work on this article so far, we're very close! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This article now passes GA. Congrats to Doug Coldwell and anyone else who worked on it! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The descriptions of the people Royle enslaved seem a little odd. "Was a runaway" and "some of them were runaway slaves" is passive and takes away their agency in running away. Also, I would suggest saying "Royle enslaved [so and so people]" rather than "Royle owned...slaves" - to enslave someone is an active thing, not a passive state of being. In general, avoid using "slave" as the primary word for the people Royle enslaved, as opposed to their names (if known) or other descriptors.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC) As in the other articles we've worked on, the chronology is a little confused. I think it would be worth incorporating the "Newspaper controversy" section into the two sections about his early and mid-life and making sure the section flows chronologically. Similarly, you could incorporate "Runaway slaves" and "Household" into a new "Personal life" section, combining it with "Death and will"  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues found, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Checking the source for the following sentence: "Royle followed Ben Franklin's model as a typical colonial printer and postmaster", I think this sentence slightly misrepresents the source. If I'm reading the source (Hall) correctly, it means that being postmaster as well as printer was Franklin's model, which Royle followed. If that's what the article's sentence is intended to mean, it isn't clear. It implies that Royle followed Franklin's model (unspecified) in all aspects, not just in also being postmaster.  Done Reworded to Royle followed Ben Franklin's example as a typical colonial printer and postmaster. Source says, "Hunter and Royle were also postmasters, in the familiar colonial tradition of printers following Franklin's example..."
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Was Royle the colony's official printer up until his death? The article doesn't make this clear.  Done - in the Works section. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Did the print shop pass to William Hunter Jr. after his death, one of his sons, or someone else?  Done - in the Works section. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Was the schoolhouse he described in his will ever created, and if so what happened to it?  Done - Did a lot of research on this and no source speaks further about the schoolhouse, so my guess is that it was never built.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Removed some repetitious material.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)